Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 431151
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-10-04
How the heck would old "Windows Classic" (I'm assuming you mean like Windows 3, 95, and 97) not be considered an OS?
As far as I know, being multi-user and network aware are not requirements for being an OS.
Maybe you are talking about Windows 1 and 2, which were mostly just shells on top of DOS? (Though I would still call them OSs.)